Giving the masses what they actually want

Post your suggestions here
Jrife548
Posts: 473
Joined: Sat Nov 19, 2016 9:15 pm
Team: looking 4 gamer team

Giving the masses what they actually want

Post by Jrife548 »

So everybody knows that MX Simulator is an absolute gem of a motocross game in terms of community, physics, ect. There's no other game like it and nothing has even been close to achieving what JLV has managed to do in this game, obviously the main standout feature being the incredible physics. I was drawn to this game by watching old vurbmoto gamers' videos, and watching 2 people enter a rhythm section, hit 2 very different lines, and both of them being realistic and close to the same speed. It was truly something I've never seen before and something I never thought we'd ever see in a motocross game.

With all that being said, we have to face the fact that the game is old, the graphics are outdated, and the features are limited. Games like MXBikes are obviously not going to be able to compete with JLV's physics in terms of realism and fairness, but it makes up for it with fun features that sim is lacking, like pitbikes/superminis, good sounds, good graphics, a great first person camera, the list goes on.

I propose to you JLV, to start implementing experimental features like full rider falloff, and rider lean (strictly a cosmetic feature to allow yourself to have more of a unique style without actually changing the physics), (we've seen this is possible) but limit them to a single player capacity, enabling it through the target line like you would with the editor, and erode. This way, the community can get to experience all the things we've been asking for for an entire decade without breaking racing. It would be really cool to see the ability to make your own modded dinos (obviously limited to single player) or be able to change the strength of front wheel (lock?) on your private servers to make the racing experience line up more with your liking.

Sim is kinda falling behind in the feature catagory, and it's driven alot of people away from the game, but somehow, there are still lots of loyal fans of the game who stick around because the game is just that good. Imagine what the game COULD be if we would just start implementing little things that seem pretty normal for moto games, but just aren't in sim.
Image
Jaruro38
Posts: 668
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 10:09 am
Team: TOW1N
Location: SPAIN

Re: Giving the masses what they actually want

Post by Jaruro38 »

+1
Motospun
Posts: 87
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2018 6:44 pm
Team: 1TF
Location: Communist Canada

Re: Giving the masses what they actually want

Post by Motospun »

The things that make people think MXB is better are just small stuff that looks cool like flowy rider animations and a loose first-person camera. I think this video of a first-person cam made manually with keyframes proves my point https://youtu.be/XjwJSD7lSY4 one of the comments on this video states "Something about the way you are riding in this vid makes sim look 10x more real than usual" If you watch the video, there's nothing special about the riding. It's simply the loose first-person camera giving you the illusion that the game is more realistic. The same goes for looser rider movements like leaning side to side, it gives the average person the illusion that the game is more realistic. It seems like the amazing physics are hidden under stiff rider animations and the average person doesn't realize how proper the physics really are because the game looks stiff and awkward. also add option to turn off front end lock pls.
Quenteno
Posts: 44
Joined: Sun Mar 15, 2020 9:38 pm
Team: Unlimited.Co

Re: Giving the masses what they actually want

Post by Quenteno »

Jrife548 wrote: Thu Nov 04, 2021 3:51 am So everybody knows that MX Simulator is an absolute gem of a motocross game in terms of community, physics, ect. There's no other game like it and nothing has even been close to achieving what JLV has managed to do in this game, obviously the main standout feature being the incredible physics. I was drawn to this game by watching old vurbmoto gamers' videos, and watching 2 people enter a rhythm section, hit 2 very different lines, and both of them being realistic and close to the same speed. It was truly something I've never seen before and something I never thought we'd ever see in a motocross game.

With all that being said, we have to face the fact that the game is old, the graphics are outdated, and the features are limited. Games like MXBikes are obviously not going to be able to compete with JLV's physics in terms of realism and fairness, but it makes up for it with fun features that sim is lacking, like pitbikes/superminis, good sounds, good graphics, a great first person camera, the list goes on.

I propose to you JLV, to start implementing experimental features like full rider falloff, and rider lean (strictly a cosmetic feature to allow yourself to have more of a unique style without actually changing the physics), (we've seen this is possible) but limit them to a single player capacity, enabling it through the target line like you would with the editor, and erode. This way, the community can get to experience all the things we've been asking for for an entire decade without breaking racing. It would be really cool to see the ability to make your own modded dinos (obviously limited to single player) or be able to change the strength of front wheel (lock?) on your private servers to make the racing experience line up more with your liking.

Sim is kinda falling behind in the feature catagory, and it's driven alot of people away from the game, but somehow, there are still lots of loyal fans of the game who stick around because the game is just that good. Imagine what the game COULD be if we would just start implementing little things that seem pretty normal for moto games, but just aren't in sim.
yes
jlv
Site Admin
Posts: 14274
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 5:39 am
Team: No Frills Racing
Contact:

Re: Giving the masses what they actually want

Post by jlv »

Basically what I've been doing for the last 6 months is I went from this:

Image

To this:

Image

And this:

Image

Probably a huge waste of time but it did provide an unexpected FPS boost. If you don't know, an OpenGL compatibility profile still provides the functionality deprecated in OpenGL 3.0. A core profile has the deprecated stuff removed. OpenGL ES is supposed to be for embedded systems but it's really just a slightly less capable core profile used for portables with weaker GPUs, things like cell phones and Raspberry Pi computers.

Since I was scrapping the fixed function rendering paths I figured I go all the way and be able to run on a core profile. As usual, it turned out to take longer than I expected. Like I said, probably a waste but it is a little faster now. I think it's because the new code doesn't use the built in normal matrix for lighting, which requires GL to calculate the inverse of the modelview matrix every time you update it and draw something. The speedup seemed to happen around when I stopped using the old matrix code but I wasn't benchmarking it as often as I should have to know exactly what change did it. A lot of tracks that used to dip down to 100 FPS are holding a solid 127 now.

Anyway, this is all just preparation for redoing the terrain engine. My goal is way better speed, especially when erode is on, and nearly instant decal drops.

So basically, in the near future you can expect an update that gives a small FPS boost at the cost of dropping support for OpenGL versions before 3.1. After that a major update for the terrain engine.
Josh Vanderhoof
Sole Proprietor
jlv@mxsimulator.com
If you email, put "MX Simulator" in the subject to make sure it gets through my spam filter.
Jakob Hubbard
Posts: 931
Joined: Fri Nov 24, 2017 3:16 am
Team: Phil's
Location: Cold

Re: Giving the masses what they actually want

Post by Jakob Hubbard »

jlv wrote: Fri Nov 05, 2021 1:23 am Basically what I've been doing for the last 6 months is
I would love to see more of these posts from you. Just status updates about what you're doing to the game excites me because it goes stale for a while and I'm curious about what's going on.
Image
Jrife548
Posts: 473
Joined: Sat Nov 19, 2016 9:15 pm
Team: looking 4 gamer team

Re: Giving the masses what they actually want

Post by Jrife548 »

jlv wrote: Fri Nov 05, 2021 1:23 am .
Trust me, I know what you're currently doing is important and every update you make is appreciated by all of us, the title of the post kinda makes it seem like what you're doing isn't what we want, but it is. I was just trying to also say these small little things that seem unimportant and like a waste is something we've all really really wanted for a long time.
Image
sethypeety
Posts: 243
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2016 2:51 pm
Team: SpitFire Aprilia
Location: in your face
Contact:

Re: Giving the masses what they actually want

Post by sethypeety »

jlv wrote: Fri Nov 05, 2021 1:23 am Anyway, this is all just preparation for redoing the terrain engine.
The fps boost sounds pretty good on it's own, but will this get rid of the jagged edges that form when building on bigger grids?
Image
Jakob Hubbard
Posts: 931
Joined: Fri Nov 24, 2017 3:16 am
Team: Phil's
Location: Cold

Re: Giving the masses what they actually want

Post by Jakob Hubbard »

sethypeety wrote: Fri Nov 05, 2021 5:38 pm The fps boost sounds pretty good on it's own, but will this get rid of the jagged edges that form when building on bigger grids?
I highly doubt it, the edges that form on bigger grids are formed when you use too high of a scaling factor in your terrain.hf. Basically there's less detail in the heightmap per ft in game. ft:pixel ratio is changed with that scaling factor. That's why the triangles/jagged edges form when you try making a skinny rut on a big map.

I think what he means be redoing the terrain engine is how everything is rendered in game. He mentioned somewhere about allowing the ability to use much larger decals so track creators can use much less higher detailed decals rather than thousands of 256x256 decals.
Image
jlv
Site Admin
Posts: 14274
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 5:39 am
Team: No Frills Racing
Contact:

Re: Giving the masses what they actually want

Post by jlv »

sethypeety wrote: Fri Nov 05, 2021 5:38 pm The fps boost sounds pretty good on it's own, but will this get rid of the jagged edges that form when building on bigger grids?
Not exactly sure which jagged edges you mean but if you mean the jaggyness from too large of a scale setting I'm definitely planning on making 4097x4097 terrain sizes practical so it should be possible to run a small scale and still have a reasonably large terrain.

I should mention the FPS improvement is measured on Linux/Mesa. Going to test it on Nvidia soon. Hopefully it's an improvement on both drivers.
Jakob Hubbard wrote: Fri Nov 05, 2021 10:01 pm I think what he means be redoing the terrain engine is how everything is rendered in game. He mentioned somewhere about allowing the ability to use much larger decals so track creators can use much less higher detailed decals rather than thousands of 256x256 decals.
Actually I'm going to want to use a texture atlas for the decals so they can be drawn in one call. So you're going to want them all to fit in one 4096x4096 texture. You'll probably get a lot more variety with 256 different 256x256 textures as opposed to say 4 different 2048x2048 textures or 16 different 1024x1024 textures.

Not dealing with old GPUs that can't even handle big textures is going to make things so much easier.
Josh Vanderhoof
Sole Proprietor
jlv@mxsimulator.com
If you email, put "MX Simulator" in the subject to make sure it gets through my spam filter.
jlv
Site Admin
Posts: 14274
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 5:39 am
Team: No Frills Racing
Contact:

Re: Giving the masses what they actually want

Post by jlv »

Finally did some testing on Nvidia. This was on rF's 2021 Fox Raceway 2. I just rode a time trial lap in 2nd gear until the tabletop with the banner so this isn't perfectly consistent or anything. Definitely faster but with the super old CPU still not a solid 128 like the 2400g. (2021-03-31-1566 is the last posted snapshot and r1602 is my current sources.)

Core i3 530 / GT 1030
2021-03-31-1566 (4.6.0 NVIDIA 455.38):
128=1962 64=5049 32=65 16=0 8=0 4=0 2=0 1=0
(27% 128 fps)

r1602 (3.1.0 NVIDIA 455.38):
128=6346 64=1991 32=7 16=0 8=0 4=0 2=0 1=0
(76% 128 fps)

r1602 (OpenGL ES 3.2 NVIDIA 455.38):
128=6681 64=1835 32=1 16=0 8=0 4=0 2=0 1=0
(78% 128 fps)

2400g / Vega 11 integrated GPU
2021-03-31-1566 (4.5 (Compatibility Profile) Mesa 19.2.6)
128=1766 64=5701 32=2 16=0 8=0 4=0 2=0 1=0
(23% 128 fps)

r1602 (4.5 (Core Profile) Mesa 19.2.6)
128=8352 64=3 32=0 16=0 8=0 4=0 2=0 1=0
(99% 128 fps)

r1602 (OpenGL ES 3.2 Mesa 19.2.6)
128=8326 64=27 32=0 16=0 8=0 4=0 2=0 1=0
(99% 128 fps)
Josh Vanderhoof
Sole Proprietor
jlv@mxsimulator.com
If you email, put "MX Simulator" in the subject to make sure it gets through my spam filter.
Jakob Hubbard
Posts: 931
Joined: Fri Nov 24, 2017 3:16 am
Team: Phil's
Location: Cold

Re: Giving the masses what they actually want

Post by Jakob Hubbard »

jlv wrote: Wed Nov 10, 2021 1:26 am Finally did some testing on Nvidia.
This is good to see. Am I correct in assuming that the percentage values represent the total time percentage at 128fps? Just confused on what the bits in decimal form for each byte represent.
Image
jlv
Site Admin
Posts: 14274
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 5:39 am
Team: No Frills Racing
Contact:

Re: Giving the masses what they actually want

Post by jlv »

Jakob Hubbard wrote: Wed Nov 10, 2021 6:46 am This is good to see. Am I correct in assuming that the percentage values represent the total time percentage at 128fps? Just confused on what the bits in decimal form for each byte represent.
The histogram is the number of frames at 128 FPS, 64 FPS, 32 FPS, etc. The percentages are the percent of 128 FPS frames.
Josh Vanderhoof
Sole Proprietor
jlv@mxsimulator.com
If you email, put "MX Simulator" in the subject to make sure it gets through my spam filter.
Jakob Hubbard
Posts: 931
Joined: Fri Nov 24, 2017 3:16 am
Team: Phil's
Location: Cold

Re: Giving the masses what they actually want

Post by Jakob Hubbard »

jlv wrote: Thu Nov 11, 2021 2:06 amThe histogram is the number of frames at 128 FPS, 64 FPS, 32 FPS, etc. The percentages are the percent of 128 FPS frames.
Gotcha, test results look pretty promising. Good to see.
Image
jlv
Site Admin
Posts: 14274
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 5:39 am
Team: No Frills Racing
Contact:

Re: Giving the masses what they actually want

Post by jlv »

Jakob Hubbard wrote: Thu Nov 11, 2021 6:34 am
jlv wrote: Thu Nov 11, 2021 2:06 amThe histogram is the number of frames at 128 FPS, 64 FPS, 32 FPS, etc. The percentages are the percent of 128 FPS frames.
Gotcha, test results look pretty promising. Good to see.
Yeah, I was just hoping it wouldn't be slower. Getting this much improvement is a nice surprise.
Josh Vanderhoof
Sole Proprietor
jlv@mxsimulator.com
If you email, put "MX Simulator" in the subject to make sure it gets through my spam filter.
Post Reply